SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATHIYA SELVAM – Appellant
Versus
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
CRL A 166/2013



Advocates:
['M/S T BALAJI', '', 'A THIYAGARAJAN', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']

BAIL SLIP

The Appellant/Accused namely Sathya Selvam, S/o.Nalliyappan

aged about 25 years was directed to be released on bail as per

the Order of this Court dated 14.03.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2013

in Crl.A.No.166 of 2013 on the file of this Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17-2-2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU

Criminal Appeal No.166 of 2013

Sathiya Selvam

... Appellant/Accused

Vs.

State by the Inspector of Police,

Chinnaselam Police Station,

Crime No.428 of 2010

... Respondent/Complainant

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2)

of Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the conviction and

sentence imposed by the learned III Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District by judgment

made in S.C.No.168 of 2011 on 19.2.2013.

For Appellant/Accused

:

Mr.A.G.Rajan

For Respndent/State

:

Mr.M.Maharaja

Additional Public Prosecutor

J U D G M E N T

S. NAGAMUTHU, J.

The Appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.168 of 2011 on

the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Kallakurichi, Villupuram District, who was charged for the

offences under Sections 302, 201 r/w 302 and 506(ii) IPC. By

Judgment dated 19.2.2013, the trial Court acquitted the accused

from the charge under Section 506(ii) IPC and convicted him for

the offences under Section 302 and 201 r/w 302 IPC. The

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a

file of Rs.500/-, i/d to undergo six months simple imprisonment

for the offence under Section 302 IPC; and five years rigorous

imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, i/d to undergo six

months simple imprisonment for the offence under section 201 r/w

302 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the

accused is before this Court with this appeal.

2.

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(a)

The deceased in this case was one Krishnamurthy @

Thangamani. One Sivakumar (PW-1) is the eldest son of

Nalliappan (PW-6). The accused Sathiya Selvam is the second

son and the deceased Krishnamurthy @ Thangamani is the third son

of Nalliappan (PW-6). Nalliappan was living separately.

Sivakumar got married and he was also living separately. The

accused and the deceased were living along with their mother and

grandmother.

(b)

For quite sometime, there was a dispute between the

family members in respect of partition of the joint family

properties. The deceased Krishnamurthy @ Thangamani was

insisting that the properties should be partitioned in four

equal shares and one such share should be allotted to the father

and mother. But the accused was not agreeable for the same,

which resulted in ill-feeling between them. This is stated to

be the motive for the occurrence.

(c)

On 5.11.2010 at about 3.30 a.m., the deceased

Krishnamurthy @ Thangamani was sleeping in the house of

Sivakumar (PW-1). At that time, the accused entered into the

house of Sivakumar and cut the deceased indiscriminately with

Koduval (MO-1). Then the accused himself raised alarm, as

though the deceased was cut by somebody else. This attracted

the neighbours.

(d)

The accused himself took the deceased to Sanjeevi

Hospital, Kallakurichi, a private hospital, in 108 Ambulance,

from where he was taken to JIPMER hospital, Puducherry. On the

way near Villupuram, the deceased breathed his last.

(e)

The body of the deceased Krishnamurthy @ Thangamani was

brought to the Government Hospital at Kallakurichi. The

hospital authorities refused to receive the body and directed to

go to the Police Station. Therefore, the accused himself went

to the Police Station and made a complaint (Ex.P-7) at 8.45 a.m.

on 5.11.2010, in which he alleged that on hearing the alarm

raised by the deceased, he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top